Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEEP NARAYAN versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE II, JAUNPUR & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Deep Narayan v. The Additional District Judge Ii, Jaunpur & Another - WRIT - C No. 37085 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13893 (13 August 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J

A suit for injunction was filed by the petitioner alleging that the disputed land was a rasta and the defendants are threatening to raise construction  thereupon. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. The application was opposed by the defendant respondent no.2 alleging  that the disputed land is not a rasta. The trial court however granted a temporary injunction restraining defendant-respondent no. 2 from raising construction over the disputed land on the portion shown by  letters  M, N, O, P in the rasta shown by letters A,B,C,D. The order was challenged in appeal. The appellate court vacated the interim injunction by the impugned order dated 31.7.2007.

Counsel for the respondent states that no counter affidavit is proposed to be filed.

Counsel for the respondents states that no construction are intended to be made on the disputed land by the respondent.

The effect of the order of the trial court restraining defendant-respondent no.2 from raising constructions is to preserve the property. Change in the nature of the property during the pendency of the suit could create complication. Moreover as   as the respondent's counsel has stated that no construction are intended to be made, it is appropriate that during the pendency of the suit, the trial court's order to the extent it restrains the defendant  respondent no.2 from raising construction be maintained.

Counsel for the parties agree that suit itself be disposed of expeditiously and within a time bound period.  The suit is of the year 1995. In the circumstances this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the trial court shall try to dispose of the suit expeditiously and if possible within a period of one year. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent no.2 is restrained from raising constructions over the  the disputed  portion MNOP in the plaint map.

Dt. 13.8.2007

sn/wp-37085/07


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.